How exactly does the pro-life movement tacitly accept the notion that children are a burden? Each time I encounter a pro-life individual, they general speak of children in terms of being a "gift" and "hope" and "future".

There's a big difference between calling something a "burden" and accepting that sometimes our greatest accomplishments in life come at the cost of a lot of work, sacrifice and struggle.

David Kaplan

It's funny. The Gulf spill was tragic in the shorter term, yes. But, in the long term is was helpful. If not for the Gulf spill, they wouldn't have discovered those microbes that eat oil with the extreme efficiency like nothing else and we wouldn't have scientists now using and reproducing those microbes for cleaning up more spills.

In my mind, the Earth is not a helpless rock that needs our minuscule and irrelevant contribution to keep it healthy. The Gaian principal, something I acquired in my Leftist days, understands that the Earth is a living organism with it's own ability to keep itself healthy.

These microbes are a perfect example of that and yet another reason the Left needs to stop trying to control the show. Even a million leftists are no match for the power of Nature to do it's own will.

I'm glad you wrote this. Regardless that many, if not most of my views are conservative or Right wing, I am still an independent and my views regarding sexuality have usually been more liberal - even libertine, sometimes. I don't believe people should have to be married to have sex and I have no problem with homosexuality in any form between consensual partners. As long as it's done responsibly and safely, it's all good.

Many people engaging in roleplay in their bedroom. It's a popular pastime of American men and women to dress up as schoolgirls or cheerleaders in the privacy of their own home and act out whatever fantasies they have. This is neither pedophilia nor immoral - "rights vs. what's right". Regardless of whether someone simply dresses in a costume for roleplay or goes as far as to add lockers, desks and a chalkboard - the bottom line is that the people are still adults and have no interest in acting out their fantasies with with children.

The PTC needs to lighten the hell up and find something more realistically offensive to go after. I think having media watchdogs is a good thing - but this kind of thing only pushes them to become irrelevant.

I guess Whoopi didn't find O'Reilly to be a "gas, gas, gas". So she "Jumpin' Jack Flashed" outta there!

Get it?! Ha! I kill myself!

Joy is just a schmuck.

I don't own a TV. 'Nuff said.

But, I do have Netflix and often enjoy movies and some TV shows. The advantage is that I can choose when and what I watch. I pay $10 a month (vs. about $60 a month for regular cable) and enjoy zero commercials, zero ads for other programs, no "surprise" scenes (I don't like gory or overly sexual content and choose my programs carefully) and - best of all - no wasted money on infomercials and paid programming.

A friend of mine, who is even more selective and vigilant about what they watch than I am, subscribes to a family-friendly video service that pre-edits movies and removes gratuitous violence and sex while maintaining the plot lines.

In any case, yes, I believe vigilance is important. And, there are plenty of ways to take control of your TV viewing rather than it taking control of you.

I recently had the pleasure of watching "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed", a documentary on Intelligent Design narrated and starring Ben Stein. It was a great movie and I highly recommend it to those seeking more than the populist notion that ID is simply Creationism in disguise.

Stein explores ID throughout the movie and at the end sits down for an interview with Dawkins. You're right that watching such an arrogant person squirm is worth almost any price of admission. Stein is both a cerebral intellect and passionate theist and he simply lets Dawkins hang himself with his own rope. In the movie, Dawkins even admits that Intelligent Design - albeit not the deity-type - has some potential for legitimacy. Ultimately, as atheists universally do, Dawkins acquiesce that "no one knows" where or how it all started. Then, on his atheist cue, continues with the standard rhetorical "but it can't God that started it" statement.

And, on it goes. Anyway, if you haven't seen the movie, get some popcorn and enjoy it. The Dawkins/Stein finally is quite dramatic and entertaining.

Justin Beiber is a creepy, arrogant, self-inflated individual. The simple act of finding him attractive is criminal by itself. I'm kidding (no, I'm not. Beiber is a nitwit.)

Anyway, after reading the posts Knepper and his behavior on other blogs I have to say that the evidence is pretty condemning. Yes, Knepper is young and yes he may have potential. But, he's not a minor and is subject to the same consequences as any adult. It seems even Frum can't argue that Knepper's actions were inappropriate.

Regardless of whether Knepper is a pedophile or on his way to becoming one, I don't think apologizing for - let alone condoning - his behavior is going to help. He's clearly got the wrong attitude about sex and sexuality. And, excusing it only ends up validating his inappropriate behavior. By attacking NRB and, thus, excusing the substantive issues with Knepper's behavior, Frum is encouraging Knepper to remain unchanged. Knepper should seek help and Frum is providing justification against that.

For that reason, I have to say that Frum is partly complicit in this behavior and an enabler. Knepper would do himself well to avoid Frum and people like him.

Yes, I know a number of ADHD adults and they are pretty smart people. I, also, am ambivalent toward labeling students - specifically when it comes to things like ADHD. I believe it's an over-diagnosed disease that, instead, punishes or creates victims out of boys because of their normal biology. Boys can be very disruptive - it's their nature. It's inappropriate to say "something's wrong with you" because of some basic, normal biology.

People need to learn to cope with whatever situations life throws at them - mentally ill or not. Teachers were meant to teach academics - readin', writin' and 'rithmatic. They were never meant to be on-call psychologists or parents. Yet, many parents - and the teachers themselves - believe that's part of their role. It's not and that's why we need to remove this inappropriate enmeshment of lives between students and teachers. Bring the students back into the homes and let the parents and communities in which they live teach them - mentorship. Allow the teachers to be teachers - not psychologists or surrogate parents.

As for treating and coping with mental illness - I'm a big fan of a comprehensive approach; both drugs and therapy. It's arguable which one is most effective but there's plenty of research to suggest that using both together provides the best odds for healing emotional problems.

I have to say, I started out enjoying this article - then becoming angry and irritated with it. Finally, I ended up agreeing with it but for different reasons than Mr. Rowan may expect.

Yes, I do believe that there are simply bad students. More importantly I believe our academic system is simply a bad system. But, that's not where I get angry.

I got angry with Mr. Rowan's accusations against those with mental disorders and the insinuation that they do it on purpose - "timing" it for maximum effect. ADHD wasn't started or diagnosed by the NEA and is, indeed, a legitimate and treatable mental illness. The NEA may have exploited it in their bureaucracy and governance of of teachers' issues. But, that doesn't negate that fact that it's a real and often debilitating brain disease. Shame on Mr. Rowan for his intolerance.

The system is simply broken. But, what's broken about it? As Mr. Rowan pointed out in the case of foreign students, you get out of it what you put into it and it always take self-motivation to learn anything. There are plenty of resources and many people, myself included, will admit we learned more stuff - both academic and real-world - outside of school than in it. It's those that aren't motivated and bring everyone down - the attitude - that creates the problem. This is obviously where I start agreeing with Mr. Rowan, again.

I agree that the students with poor attitudes and self-motivation need to be removed from the school to allow the motivated students to learn. But, "poor attitude and self-motivation" is a subjective term. Hell, even "ADHD" is prone to subjective interpretation of symptoms. So, what to do?

Get rid of the brick and mortar school system. It's archaic and we don't need it any more. Return the kids back to their local communities and parents and allow them to be mentored. Offer comprehensive CONSULTING services from teachers via live and pre-recorded streaming video. The only brick and mortar settings should be for labs and research.

Give parents back the ability and responsibility of worrying about being accountable for a child's behavior. If the child fails to meet academic and societal standards, fine or jail the parents. They are the ones who should be held accountable in the first place.

And don't give me this "Poor me, poor me. I don't make enough money, can't stay home with my kid and have to work to support them!" crap. There are a million ways to circumvent that problem - mentoring and babysitting by neighbors and the elderly. And, getting rid of the booze, cigarettes, tattoos, cellphones, hair extensions, designer jeans, expensive cars, giant flat-screen TVs, etc - that'll all make it easier for you NOT to work and focus on your kids. Oh, and, ya know, that whole GETTING MARRIED TO YOUR CHILD'S FATHER thing might help, too.

Anyway, is my plan perfect? Were we all born to be autodidacts? No. But those that want to learn should be given the chance to. Those that don't want to should be held accountable - along with their parents.

And, again, those that can't learn or have real learning issues should NOT be punished for it or made suspect. They should be treated individually - again, something my plan would help.

I'm a big fan of arguments. I don't mean the, "You suck!" kind of arguments. I mean formal, logical arguments that are open to debate.

Mr. Rall makes invalid and fallacious arguments to support his conclusions.

1) Obama is the "best the system has to offer." Who says Obama is the best? You? Me? Aliens? God? "The Best" is a subjective, qualitative characteristic and not quantifiable. Clearly, many people DIDN'T feel he was the best during the 2008 elections.

2) Not going to find a president "less owned" be corporations. Again, fallacious. Since when can Mr. Rall predict the future? If he can, he would be a much more successful and relevant person right now.

3) Obama is "neither willing nor able to" accomplish stuff. That may be true. In fact, it apparently is. But, that doesn't mean that "the best" is somehow failing. It only mean Obama is failing. And, if anything, it means he wasn't "the best" and we need to look in other directions and to other people - options only a democracy would afford us - for "the best".